The World and Everything in It: March 21, 2024

PREROLL: The World and Everything in It is made possible by Jesus who created the world and by listeners like us. My name is Lydia Koleszar. I live in Woodstock, Connecticut and I’m currently homeschooled. My favorite part of the program is the kicker, those funny short stories in the middle. I hope you enjoy today's program.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning! Texas is locked in battle with the Biden administration over the southern border. We’ll hear about the latest legal maneuvers in court.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Also, Hong Kong’s security law further erodes its freedom. And American missionaries feel conflicted about leaving Haiti.

AUDIO: This doesn't mean we're not going to see you again, it just means that for this moment, God, God has made a decision that it's time for us to go.

And WORLD commentator Cal Thomas says the abortion messaging of the Biden administration must be opposed.

REICHARD: It’s Thursday, March 21st. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

BROWN: And I’m Myrna Brown. Good morning!

REICHARD: Time for news with Kent Covington.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Impeachment inquiry » The top Republican leading an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden says he wants to hear from the president himself.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer:

COMER: It’s done over and over again. The Biden family promises Joe’s power. Joe Biden shows up, and millions of dollars come into the Bidens’ pockets. Joe Biden is the family’s closer.

Comer says he plans to invite the president to testify before his committee about his family’s business dealings.

His announcement followed a day of testimony from dueling witnesses over whether the president was improperly involved in his son Hunter’s business dealings.

Former Hunter Biden business associate Tony Bobulinski claimed he was.

BOBULINSKI: Though the truth involving the deep corruption of the Biden family, including the malfeasance of the sitting president of the United States, might be raw and unpleasant, the American people must hear it.

But former Rudy Giuliani aid Lev Parnas told lawmakers the case against the president is built on false claims.

PARNAS: Rudy Giuliani on behalf of then President Donald Trump tasked me with a mission to travel the globe, finding dirt on the Bidens, so an array of networks could spread disinformation about them.

The White House calls the hearings a politically motivated farce, but Republicans say they want to know why foreign entities funneled millions of dollars to companies owned by the Biden family.

Texas immigration law appeals court » Texas Governor Greg Abbott says state authorities can continue arresting illegal migrants despite a federal order to pause enforcement the state’s controversial immigration law.

An appeals court heard arguments about the law known as SB-4 on Wednesday. The law expressly gives state authorities the right to detain and deport illegal migrants.

But Abbott told reporters:

ABBOTT: Even without SB-4, Texas has the legal authority to arrest people coming across the razor wire barriers on our border.

The Biden administration argues that only the federal government has the constitutional power to enforce immigration law.

Abbott claims Texas has no choice but to police its southern border because the Biden administration refuses to do so.

Gaza hospital raid » The Israeli Defense forces —or IDF — say they killed 90 Hamas terrorists who were hiding inside Gaza’s largest hospital. WORLD’s Kristen Flavin has more.

HAGARI: [Speaking Hebrew]

KRISTEN FLAVIN: Spokesman Daniel Hagari said IDF troops were acting on intelligence that indicated a large number of terrorists fled into the hospital area and hid.

He said, “When the forces entered the compound, the terrorists, who were surprised and had barricaded themselves in several buildings in the hospital, opened fire on our forces from inside the hospital.”

Hargari said soldiers also found weapons caches there.

Israel is calling on the United Nations to condemn Hamas’ use of hospitals as shelters for terrorist operations.

For WORLD, I’m Kristen Flavin.

Blinken to Tel Aviv » Secretary of State Tony Blinken is adding an urgent visit to Israel to his latest Middle East tour. He’ll arrive in Tel Aviv on Friday after meetings in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

State Dept. deputy spokesman Vedant Patel:

PATEL: We’re going to continue to have these conversations with our Israeli partners on what we believe can hopefully be a path forward that will help defeat Hamas, but also be mindful of these varying humanitarian factors.

President Biden faces heavy pressure at home to curb Israel’s military offensive as he gears up for a tough re-election battle.

Next week, an Israeli delegation will meet in Washington with Biden administration officials who hope to persuade Israel to call off a planned ground offensive in the southern Gaza city of Raffah.

Fed interest rates » Inflation has remained stubbornly high so far this year. But Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell says the Fed has no immediate plans to hike interest rates again.

POWELL: The committee decided at today’s meeting to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 5.25 to 5.5 percent and to continue the process of significantly reducing our securities holdings.

And in fact, Powell says he still expects that the Fed will cut its key interest rate three times by year’s end.

However, the central bank has slightly raised its inflation forecasts for next year and board members foresee fewer rate cuts in 2025.

Haiti evacuations » The state of Florida just evacuated more than a dozen Florida residents from Haiti which has spiraled out of control amid rampant gang violence.

The state’s Department of Emergency Management evacuated 14 people on a chartered plane.

Governor Ron DeSantis:

DESANTIS: This will be the first of probably many flights to bring people who are in harm’s way, given what’s going on in Haiti.

Sound courtesy of WFTV.

And the State Department says the federal government is also planning evacuations on chartered helicopters.

I’m Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: the legal future of a Texas border security law. Plus, leaving Haiti.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: It’s Thursday the 21st of March, 2024.

Glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning, I’m Myrna Brown.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard.

First up: Texas and the federal government’s border battle.

Here’s a timeline: In November, Texas passed a law that mirrors federal law. It made illegal border crossings a state crime. The law authorized the state to detain and deport people who violate the law.

BROWN: So border law on.

REICHARD: Then in January, the Biden administration sued Texas. It argued border enforcement is a job for the federal government, not individual states. So a district court blocked the law.

BROWN: Ok, law off.

REICHARD: But then the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit allowed the law to take effect, pending appeal. The Biden administration filed an emergency request opposing that to the Supreme Court which the high court denied on Tuesday, allowing the law to go into effect.

But that lasted only a few hours. Late Tuesday night, the Fifth Circuit froze that ruling.

BROWN: So law on…and then off again.

REICHARD: Right. Stay with me. Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard arguments on whether the law should stay on hold while the case proceeds. Judge Andrew Oldham boils down the issue.

ANDREW OLDHAM: We have no clue how any of this would actually be enforced, because there's not been a single person who has been arrested, not a single person who has been ordered removed, not a single state judge who's had occasion to adjudicate a single provision of this in any way. So we're predicting all of this, right? And we have to say all of it is unlawful, and therefore the entire thing will never go into effect, so saith, the federal court?

BROWN: Talk about legal whiplash! Here to clarify things as they now stand and how the Supreme Court may handle a future dispute about the border is Daniel Suhr. He is an attorney in Milwaukee, well versed in constitutional law, and a contributor to WORLD Opinions.

REICHARD: Daniel, good morning.

DANIEL SUHR: Good morning, Mary. Great to be with you.

REICHARD: Daniel. Let’s start with things as they now stand. Can Texas defend its own border or not?

SUHR: Let's be clear, Mary, Texas cannot enforce the law making it a crime that allows Texas to arrest people who crossed the border illegally. But I don't think that's going to stop Governor Abbott from a number of other tools that he's already using to defend the Texas border. He's got the national guard down there. He's got the state police down there. And there are a number of alternative tools beyond just this new law that Texas has been using and will continue to use, although obviously this law would make that much more effective.

REICHARD: Well, let's just back up a little bit. The Supreme Court's order on Tuesday, let Texas enforce its own law, as we said that only lasted a few hours. I think a lot of people might ask, why wasn't the high court's decision the final word?

SUHR: So this case is coming up in a very accelerated and preliminary fashion, right? Usually for a case deciding such a big and complicated question of constitutional law, I mean, it could take two, three years. In this instance, though, everything is going lickety split, because so much is at stake. And what happened at the Supreme Court this week is really just a very preliminary ruling, not what we would say “on the merits,” not in a substantive decision. But just a quick snap judgment of do we or do we not freeze the law as it is, while this case is actually briefed, argued, and decided?

REICHARD All right, well, you know, sometimes it's useful to read the different opinions of the justices just to glean what they might do in the future, even though we know that particular order just lasted a few hours. Talk a bit about what the different justices said about the Texas law and what we should do about it.

SUHR: Yeah, so in emergency rulings like this, there's no expectation that the court is going to deliver any opinion. In this instance, though, we did see an opinion for the three justices who were appointed by Democratic presidents. And they were very sympathetic to the Biden administration, that Justice Sotomayor joined by justices Kagan, and Jackson has a brief but opinionated opinion, saying that immigration is really a topic the Constitution reserves to the federal government. That that's the way we've done it for two centuries, and that Texas is going beyond its constitutional boundaries with this new law.

REICHARD: What about the justices in the majority?

SUHR: Mary, we don't actually have a majority opinion here. There's simply a concurrence from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who is one of the six conservatives on the court. And her opinion focuses on procedure. Her concern is that we don't see this rush to the Supreme Court in cases like this, that there is value in having these issues percolate through the lower courts, and really reserving to the Supreme Court, those decisions that only it can make, and to do so at the end of the case. And so this sort of rushed to the court is something she discourages, but her opinion doesn't give us any sort of insight into her view of the merits.

REICHARD: Well, the ball is back in the court of the 5th Circuit…and a three-judge panel heard oral argument yesterday. What was the focus there? Did they address the merits of the Texas law, or just the process of litigating it?

SUHR: No, we have a deeper insight into the merits at this point. It's still preliminary in some sense, but we're getting really to the core question of what the Constitution allows Texas to do. And so we heard one judge appointed by President Trump, who seemed sympathetic to Texas's position, that it has at least some power to act in this regard. We heard no questions from one judge who was appointed by President Biden, although observers like me presume that she is going to be hostile to Texas's position. And so really, things are going to come down to the third member of the panel, who is a George W. Bush appointee, and is perceived as sort of a moderate conservative on the Fifth Circuit. And the questions she asked were sort of suggesting that maybe there's a middle way here, that some of the Texas law is permissible, and could go forward at least temporarily, that other parts of it are not permissible, especially the direct arrest provisions.

REICHARD: Okay, so what is now next, do you think?

SUHR: This case is going to take a while, and I think it will be back at the U.S. Supreme Court probably pretty soon. One of the arguments Texas is going to make, I think, is that the facts on the ground today are so much more extreme than they were even in 2012 when the Arizona case was up. That at some point, some of the other constitutional provisions, including the guarantee of the Constitution, that states will not be subject to invasion, like that these other constitutional principles really come into play, because things have just gotten that bad. I'm not sure if there are five votes on the court for that, but it's something I think Texas is ready to argue, and will be arguing at the Supreme Court soon.

REICHARD: Daniel Suhr is a lawyer in Milwaukee and a writer for WORLD Opinions. Daniel, thanks again!

SUHR: Thank you, Mary. Great to be with you.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: Hong Kong takes another step towards Beijing.

On Tuesday, lawmakers in Hong Kong passed a law they claim will protect the island state from espionage and “external interference.”

MARY REICHARD, HOST: But dissidents abroad say this will only further erode freedoms of people living there.

Joining us now to talk about it is Dean Cheng. He’s a senior advisor to the China program of the U.S. Institute of Peace.

BROWN: Dean, good morning.

DEAN CHENG: Good morning.

BROWN: Well let’s start with some background. Why has Hong Kong been historically distinct from mainland China?

CHENG: Well, Hong Kong was detached from China in the wake of the first Opium War in the mid 1800s. This was a war fought by Great Britain to basically force China to accept the sale of British imperial opium in that country. China fought, China lost, and Hong Kong was literally part of the spoils of war. So basically, Hong Kong was a British colony until 1997, when under a negotiated agreement, including the UK-China Joint Declaration, Hong Kong was supposed to spend about 50 years from 1997 on as a special administrative region. It would maintain its own laws, it would maintain its own courts, freedom of the press was guaranteed. The one thing was that it was part of China, certainly for the purposes of national defense, certain aspects of law enforcement, etc. What we have seen is a steady erosion of Hong Kong's uniqueness, as it has been brought, essentially, in line with policies of the People's Republic of China, with the attitudes towards individual liberties and freedom that mark the PRC.

BROWN: Lawmakers in Hong Kong first tried passing a national security law back in 2003, but it faced significant opposition. What would that law have done?

CHENG: What that law would have done, and which it did eventually do in 2020 when it was passed, it would have really restricted, and we have seen since 2020 that actual restriction, on the rights to protest, the rights of the press to cover things broadly. Basically, if we look at the People's Republic of China, and the role of the Chinese Communist Party, what you see is an effort to eliminate all aspects of civil society. What is civil society? Civil society is that broad network of organizations, relationships, etc, that exists outside of government. And the CCP's attitude is no, there is nothing outside the control, the surveillance of the party. Under the One Country, Two Systems rule, the people of Hong Kong wanted to preserve the right to civil society. What we are seeing here with the National Security Law, as proposed in 2003, and is subsequently passed in 2020, was, “No, civil society will be subordinated to the state, the state has the right and authority to start coming in and dominating and controlling all aspects of behavior.”

BROWN: So wrapping up here, we have this new law that goes into effect on Saturday…how does it expand on the 2020 law?

CHENG: So under this Article 23, there are now 39 new "national security crimes." This includes what are very vague things like theft of state secrets, unlawful acquisition of information, possession of state secrets. It also terms any interaction with external forces---which again, is left very vague. Is working for Procter and Gamble, is providing information to Bain or to Deloitte working with external forces? All of this is adding up to a very, very dangerous environment for anyone who interacts with the outside. And finally, the law further notes how much these new rules and restrictions have extraterritorial effect. So if you are doing this in London, if you're doing this in Frankfurt, or New York, this law says, “Ah, but you're doing it aimed at Hong Kong, aimed at Hong Kong businesses, where people, if you now have passed through Hong Kong, we could arrest you.” That's huge, because what it's basically saying is, this law has a global effect. And what it really, really, really is trying to do at the heart of things, is to inflict self-censorship. Because the Chinese are smart enough to recognize it takes too many people and too much effort to constantly check every action, every document, every word. If you will do it, I don't have to. If you will stay far away from violating this incredibly vague set of laws, then in that case, you're already limiting your interaction, providing information, doing all of that, whether it's to Procter and Gamble or the CIA. And that's great from Beijing's perspective.

BROWN: Dean Cheng is a senior advisor to the China program at the U.S. Institute of Peace. He was previously at the Heritage Foundation. Dean, thanks for joining us!

CHENG: Thank you for having me.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: You know the feeling when you check on your pet, and the pen is empty?

BROWN: Yeah, a gut punch of panic.

Well, that’s how Ben Best in Scotland felt after discovering that a pair of porcupines was missing from his farm. Sound from a Facebook live.

BEN BEST: They snapped the steel off the side of their door and pulled their door off, and then took off.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Wow, strong little animals!

REICHARD: Resourceful, too! The prickly rodents waddled two miles away where someone spotted the critters and rang up Farmer Ben.

BEST: Do you know I've got two porcupines in my garden. Are they yours? We’re like, yes, they are, actually.

Hard to deny it in this case, but all’s well that ends well! They all made it home into a more secure pen.

It’s The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Today is Thursday, March 21st. Thank you for turning to WORLD Radio to help start your day. Good morning. I’m Mary Reichard.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: And I’m Myrna Brown.

This week on Concurrently: The News Coach Podcast, Kelsey Reed and Jonathan Boes tackle a discipleship dilemma. What makes something a lie? And is there ever a time to tell one? Here’s a preview:

KELSEY REED: Corrie Ten Boom's The Hiding Place is on so many curricula, and for good reason. She is faced with a huge discipleship dilemma. So we're asking this question, let's think about it as it applies to her situation: she was faced with the question, Are you harboring Jews? Are you hiding Jews in your home? So let's just go to some of the questions that we might ask in this scenario. You're faced with evil men knocking on your door. Now, we know their intent is murderous. And that, of course, leads me right back to the law. What does it mean for us to keep the righteous law of the Lord? What is good, and what is evil in this scenario? Is it ever evil to lie to an evil man? That sounds a little bit like a logic problem. It is a bit of a logic problem, right? Do two wrongs make a right? Do two negatives make a positive but as we drill down into this, we're revealing some things that are very challenging about biblical ethics. And since we have the full canon, we can not only look at passages like Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, but we also see what Jesus had to say in his Sermon on the Mount.

You can hear the entire episode of Concurrently today wherever you get your podcasts. And find out more at concurrentlypodcast.com.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Coming next on The World and Everything in It: getting out of Haiti.

About two weeks ago, gangs in Haiti attacked the airport in Port-au-Prince, the capital city, and took much of it. Since then, the Haitian Prime Minister stepped down at the demand of the gangs and others. He says he’ll leave office once he appoints a presidential council.

BROWN: The unrest left many Americans stranded in Haiti, but evacuations began this past weekend. WORLD’s Mary Muncy talked to one of those Americans, and brings us our story.

MARY MUNCY: Shelley Tlucek and her family are missionaries who run a school in Haiti. It’s been closed for about three weeks.

SHELLEY TLUCEK: A big truck was put on the main road, which leads to our subdivision which blocks any form of public transportation or private cars.

But, the Tluceks had no intention of leaving. Besides, after gangs took over the airport they didn’t think they could leave. The State Department has been telling them for the last four years that if anything happens, they wouldn’t be able to get Americans out.

TLUCEK: We have not expected any—any intervention from the U.S. government. We realized that we were here against their advice. But we've never had a time we couldn't fly out of here either.

Then on Thursday during breakfast, they got a call from their son. He also lives in Haiti with his wife and newborn.

TLUCEK: He called and said, “You know what? We’ve heard from somebody that the State Department may be thinking about preparing an evacuation for U.S. citizens.”

Tlucek’s stomach knotted, and she broke down.

She didn’t want to leave, but she and her husband decided that they needed to put it in God’s hands. So, they called their Congressman and registered to be evacuated.

TLUCEK: If the doors open, we will be leaving and if they don’t open then we know that this isn’t God's time for us.

She hoped God wouldn’t open that door.

But two days later, on Saturday, they were invited to join a WhatsApp group called Evac 3/17.

March 17th. The next day.

Tlucek, her husband, and 17-year-old daughter would be leaving with 10 other people via helicopter. All they could take was a light backpack. They didn’t know what would happen to their home or if they’d be back.

They called a meeting with their Haitian employees and said goodbye.

TLUCEK: We want you to know we love you, we are not forgetting you. This doesn't mean we’re not going to see you again. It just means that for this moment, God, God has made a decision that it’s time for us to go.

Tlucek’s husband Byron gathered the evacuees to a hotel near the meeting location. He communicated between them and the evacuation team led by Florida State Representative and veteran Cory Mills.

The team wanted to evacuate everyone under the cover of night. But by midnight there was no place for the helicopter to land. Without it, the evacuation would have to wait. But the team said the Tluceks could try to find a spot.

TLUCEK: And we were sort of thinking, well, this really isn’t our role in this, we are just the gatherers of the people and getting on the helicopter.

So they told everyone the evacuation was off. They would try to regroup in the morning. Tlucek thought maybe this wasn’t actually God’s timing after all. Maybe they could stay.

Then Tlucek got a message from her brother-in-law in the military.

TLUCEK: You need to do whatever Cory Mills tells you to do. He has experience with things like this, if he tells you to do something… you just need to do it.

It was the push they needed.

Byron called the pastor of a nearby church that had a soccer field. They put the pastor and the church’s security team in contact with the evacuation group and by 1:30 in the morning, they let everyone know the evacuation was back on.

They would meet in the lobby at four AM, get in a rented van, and be at the soccer field ready for pick up by five.

Once they left the hotel, they had to go through an intersection by the airport—most of the road was blocked by concrete barriers. The police stopped them.

TLUCEK: Everyone's wanting to do the right thing. And even the police are wanting to do the right thing, I believe, in our area. But there's so many things going on that are not right, that you're, you're trying, you have to be careful, because you don't know who people really are sometimes.

The Tluceks were happy to see a police presence by the airport. The police talked to their driver.

TLUCEK: I think we were probably there two or three minutes. And then they just allowed us to pass on through.

They passed by burnt tires and buildings riddled with bullet holes, but they didn’t see anyone else until they arrived at the church.

Security let them into the compound and they found benches to sit on outside. Everyone’s shoulders relaxed. They’d made it.

The team told them where they needed to be for pick up and then nothing.

5:00, the original meeting time, came and went. Then 6:00. Then 7:00. It was getting close to sunrise.

If the team didn’t come, they would have to drive back through unsafe streets in the daylight.

TLUCEK: You don't actually know everything that's going on on the other side, like, are they still coming?

The Tluceks were the point of contact, but they also didn’t want to be annoying.

TLUCEK: It was probably around 7:30 or so that I think I may have said is everything going okay? We're not complaining. We just want to try to manage expectations, the best way possible.

The evacuation team replied they would be there at 9:15.

TLUCEK: As soon as that came through, you could see, just physically, everybody relaxed, “Okay, everything's fine. They’re still coming.”

Once the helicopter touched down, they would have two minutes to board before they needed to take off again. So they figured out where they would sit and lined up.

The helicopter landed on time, they boarded, and they were finally on their way to Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic.

Once there, the Tluceks met up with some friends in the area and other people boarded flights home. The Tluceks booked a flight to Fort Lauderdale on Wednesday. After that, they’ll probably go back to Idaho, but they don’t really know.

TLUCEK: The first 24 hours were really hard for us, like, did we actually make the right decision to get on that helicopter? But you're thinking, maybe someone else should have been on there. Or maybe it still would have been best if we stayed. I don't know how this is all going to play out. But we just have to trust - God put us there and then God took us out. And really we are putting our trust in Him to have us be where we're supposed to be even when it doesn't make sense to us.

Reporting for WORLD, I’m Mary Muncy.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Today is Thursday March 21. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Myrna Brown.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Up next: abortion at the ballot box.

Many Democrats think the abortion issue alone will let them keep the White House for another term. But WORLD commentator Cal Thomas says the pro-life side ought not appease or surrender.

CAL THOMAS: Polling consistently shows that voters dislike the Biden administration’s performance on the economy, foreign policy and many other issues, with one exception: abortion.

The president and Democrats up for re-election in Congress believe they can ride this single issue to victory in November. It is why Vice President Kamala Harris recently visited a Planned Parenthood clinic in Minnesota, becoming the first vice president–while still in office–to tour a facility that performs abortions.

Just as cities clear the streets of the homeless when heads of state arrive, Harris’ visit appeared to go no further than a photo-op in the clinic lobby. Behind her was a sign that appealed to “reproductive freedom.” Controlling the language often means one gets to control the debate and its outcome.

Harris should have been asked if she has had a personal experience with abortion as that frequently colors one’s attitude toward the procedure. While she was there, I expect she didn’t watch an ultrasound-guided abortion or see any “products of conception.” And she probably didn’t visit with any women who just had abortions, some of whom might have been crying or in shock. That’s too bad, because if she had witnessed an abortion and the aftermath, especially one in the second or third trimester, it might have at least rattled her position of no restrictions on the procedure for any reason.

Securing the language and not showing horrifying images of the Holocaust was a tactic used by the Nazis during World War II. No Life magazine photographers had access to the gas chambers and ovens until after the Allied victory. It is why Gen. Dwight Eisenhower ordered cameras to visit some of the death camps so no one would be able to deny what had occurred (though many Anti-semites still do).

Republicans should not shy away or try to appease the “pro-choice” side. Polls show many in the middle want at least some restrictions on the procedure. If Democrats are going to make abortion in the post-Roe era a major issue in the coming election, Republicans should fight back with facts. Create ads in which women say they regret having had an abortion (especially women of color who are disproportionately affected).

Feature information about the free services at pregnancy help centers and the free services they offer. (Abortion clinics usually charge.) Interview people who survived abortion and are happy to be alive. Interview women who have had abortions who say they would have made another choice had they had more information or had not been pressured by a husband, boyfriend, or parents. Show ultrasound images of babies in the womb.

Abortion is a moral, medical, and political issue. Republicans can fight back on all three levels because they hold the high ground on each one.

I’m Cal Thomas.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Tomorrow: New battle grounds for the pro-life movement. We’ll talk about it with John Stonestreet on Culture Friday. And, 25 years ago, The Matrix hit theaters and raised questions still relevant to us in the digital age. That and more tomorrow.

I’m Mary Reichard.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: And I’m Myrna Brown.

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio. WORLD’s mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

Jesus said: “O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.” —John 17:25, 26

Go now in grace and peace.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.